Re: Planet X VIEWING, Restated
Look at http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03m.htm for the latest
coordinates. They are below. You are advised to look AROUND this spot,
as these coordinates are for the whole globe. You'll find a variance
page at http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword032.htm that descibes how
far afield. Also, check the http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use20012.htm
for the latest dates for the VIEWING posting, for more specifics.
RA 4.45710 Dec 12.12791 on Dec 16, 2001
RA 4.45695 Dec 12.13145 on Dec 25, 2001
RA 4.45657 Dec 12.15692 on Jan 3, 2002
RA 4.45631 Dec 12.14997 on Jan 8, 2002
RA 4.45623 Dec 12.13873 on Jan 17, 2002
ZetaTalk (dated November 17, 2001)
RA 4.45732 Dec 11.91793 on Oct 12, 2001
RA 4.45727 Dec 11.92167 on Oct 23, 2001 (yes, a tick back up)
RA 4.45725 Dec 11.94356 on Oct 31, 2001
RA 4.45724 Dec 11.98742 on Nov 15, 2001
RA 4.45719 Dec 12.10971 on Nov 27, 2001
RA 4.45699 Dec 12.22168 on Dec 8, 2001
ZetaTalk (dated September 18, 2001)
Eddie Trimarchi wrote:
> I've read an awful lot of this thread in the last two days, but my
> newsreader has clipped a lot of it.
> It's fascinating reading really. Who needs to go to the library for some
> good science fiction. Intrigue, suspense, conflict, contradiction, lies,
> deceipt, scandal, metaphysics, history, science, religion, speculation,
> dogma... it's all here! I seem to have missed the sex bit, but I'm sure it
> must be coming up soon.
> Can I join in? I have the equipment and would love to take a picture of this
> imaginary planet, but the one thing I got from this thread is that no real
> coordinates have been given for it. If someone can provide the coordinates
> and it's not too far north for my observatory, then I will gladly take a
> long exposure ccd image of the area at a moderate focal length of 2.8
> meters, with subarcseond resolution, and see what we can see. I'm sure I
> already know the answer but I promise to not let that hinder the search.
> Somehow I think that the real answer will have no impact on the story line.
> But hey, I only want a bit-part anyway.
> Eddie Trimarchi
> "JTRIV" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>> Sounds like you want someone to do a lot of work to prove to you something we
>> already know, then probably have to put of with challenges of "doctored photos"
>> or "of course, it's not an observatory grade scope" or "how do we know these are
>> the correct coordinates?". Why don't you buy a scope? I'd say for $3,000 you can
>> get a nice computerized scope with a decent CCD setup and take your own. Heck,
>> borrow the money, no loans will be due after 18 months, right?
>> And if you want the "verbal gymnastics" to end, I'm sure that's OK with the
>> sci.astro crowd. We'd miss Nancy's comedy <G> but we'd get over it.
>> Clear Skies
>> The Small Kahuna wrote:
>>> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>>> In article <3C0280F4.AF5EAE0B@company.com>,
>>>> The Small Kahuna <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>>>>> In article <3BFB8D14.80852C84@zetatalk.com>,
>>>>>> Nancy Lieder <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Below, the Viewing Specs as posted periodically on sci.astro and
>>>>>>> sci.astro.amateur. <big snip>
>>>>>> So do you have any pictures to show us?
>>>>> Do you?
>>>> She's the one trying to convince us so it's up to her to supply pictures.
>>>> I've tried but then I'm not the one proposing it's existance. I've used a
>>>> friends 16" inch telescope last summer to look and didn't find anything
>>>> that wasn't there. I tried using Nancy's coordinates in every epoch I
>>>> could think of ... nada. I'm convinced there's nothing there.
>>>> She's either out and out lying or she's deluded herself. I'm not sure what
>>>> that says about her followers.
>>>> john R. Latala
>>> Bottom line: No, you do not have pictures.
>>> So many of the people on sci.astro seem to be in the business of trying
>>> to debunk the so-called "zetatalk" crowd. Rather than just ignore it
>>> all, you (and especially tholen) choose to confront it with Large
>>> Volumes of Words. As far as I can tell, nobody has a gun to your head,
>>> it is done of your own volition.
>>> Perhaps you see it as your obligation to help out the scientifically
>>> challenged or perhaps you are on a evangelical mission to rescue the
>>> "followers" from themselves. Perhaps you just do it to have pity on
>>> those "in the cult" or perhaps just to have fun with verbal gymnastics.
>>> Either way, if you (the collective you, not you, John Latala) were
>>> honest in your intentions you would take pictures of the coordinates,
>>> using a good faith attempt to figure out what actual coordinates Nancy
>>> is talking about. (In other words instead of arguing endlessly about
>>> hours and degrees or whatever, you might actually look at the chart she
>>> provides and choose the coordinate system that matches the chart.)
>>> You would post the data and say "not there" and be done with it. Time
>>> would pass and the subject would come up again. You would post the data
>>> and say "not there" and be done with it. Etc. With each succeding
>>> posting, you could just point to the latest picture and say: go find it
>>> for yourself then.
>>> Either time would pass and sure enough, there is a PX and it would start
>>> to show in the pictures or time would pass and week after goldam week
>>> those pictures would show - nothing. Either way the data could speak
>>> for itself. If you are trying to debunk the point, what better way than
>>> the *actual* pictures, especially with the really serious amateurs out
>>> there with some pretty sophistocated equipment. I mean, what the heck,
>>> the storage on alt.binaries.pictures.astro is free - to you.
>>> Instead you prefer verbal gymnastics, all the while claiming to be a
>>> scientist. *MY* version of a scientist also publishes his/her data,
>>> even when it is negative or not conclusive.
>>> Data speaks for itself. That is if you want to be honest about your
>>> intentions. If you would rather "just have fun poking at the psychos"
>>> then, well, ... we already have that drill down pretty well now, don't